Ram Ashish Yadav vs State Of Up And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 5852 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Ashish Yadav vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 7 March, 2025

Author: Ajay Bhanot

Bench: Ajay Bhanot

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?AFR
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33219
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8291 of 2024
 
Petitioner :- Ram Ashish Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tiwari Abhishek Rajesh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramakant Singh,Ravindra Singh,Syed Imran Ibrahim
 

 
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Tiwari Abhishek Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prakhar Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By the impugned order dated 01.05.2024 the claim of the petitioner for grant of wages in consonance with the government order dated 02.03.2015 has been declined on the footing that the petitioner is an out sourced employee w.e.f. 24.02.2020.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a peon in the year 1992-93. The services of the petitioner in the respondent corporation has been continuous and without any break.

4. The government order dated 02.03.2015 under which petitioner claims entitlement to higher wages is extracted hereunder:-

"?? ??????? ??? ?????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????/???????? ?? ??????????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????-1965 ?? ??????? ?????????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?? 10 ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ????? ???????? ??????????? ?? ????? ?????? (??????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? + ?????? ?????) 30 ??? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????"

5. The eligibility of the petitioner for benefits under the aforesaid government order was affirmed by the respondent no. 2 by order dated 24.08.2017. The aforesaid order records that the petitioner and one Bal Krishna Yadav are entitled to the benefits of the aforesaid government order. The other similarly situated employee Bal Krishna Yadav has been extended the benefit of the aforesaid government order while the petitioner has been denied the same.

6. It transpires from the record that at a much later stage the petitioner was continued through the agency of a contractor. The Court has to tear the veil to examine whether outsourcing was done as a bonafide policy objective or was applied only as a device to exploit the workmen. The plea of outsourcing made in the counter affidavit is not bonafide, and outsourcing has been done in the instant case only to deprive the petitioner of his lawful claims. The Court cannot permit the employer to create devices to exploit the class of employees who fall under the Group D category.

7. The respondents have not furnished plausible reason for denying the benefits of the government order dated 24.08.2017 to him while granting the same to the employee with whom the petitioner claims parity. The action of the respondents in so denying the petitioner benefits of the aforesaid policy is discriminatory and in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

8. The law has set its face on exploitation of the said class of employees.

9. The Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs Union of India and others reported at MANU/SC/1403/2024 noticed the consequences of misclassifying employees to avoid providing benefits and to circumvent the claims of the employees. The relevant paras are quoted hereunder:

"24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation4 serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

? Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

? Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.

? Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.

? Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

? Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country."

10. The aforesaid judgment was also followed by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar and others etc. Vs Union of India reported at 2024 (9) SCC 327. The judgments in Jaggo (supra) and Vinod Kumar (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of this case.

11. In the wake of preceding discussion the impugned orders dated 01.05.2024, 24.02.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 and order dated 22.02.2020 passed by respondent no. 2 are found to be arbitrary, illegal and in the teeth of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra) and Vinod Kumar (supra).

12. The impugned orders dated 01.05.2024, 24.02.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 and order dated 22.02.2020 passed by respondent no. 2 are liable to be set aside and are set aside.

13. The respondents are directed to ensure that full benefits of the government order dated 02.03.2015 are disbursed to the petitioner from the date of recommendation made by the Managing Director i.e. 29.04.2017. The respondents are directed to ensure that the said orders are disbursed within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In the event of any failure the petitioner may file a fresh writ petition or take out appropriate proceedings against the concerned official namely respondent no. 2, Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factory Federation Ltd. for disobedience of the orders of this Court. The respondents are also directed to frame a policy for ensuring suitable employment to the workmen in light of the decision in Jaggo (supra) and Vinod Kumar (supra).

14. The writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 7.3.2025

Pravin